Centre for Internet and Society

Essays on #List — Selected Abstracts

sneha-pp — 2019-09-03T13:38:12Z

In response to a recent call for essays that social, economic, cultural, political, infrastructural, or aesthetic dimensions of the #List, we received 11 abstracts. Out of these, we have selected 4 pieces to be published as part of a series titled #List on the r@w blog. Please find below the details of the selected abstracts. The call for essays on #List remains open, and we are accepting and assessing the incoming abstracts on a rolling basis.

1. Manisha Chachra

2. Meghna Yadav

3. Sarita Bose

4. Shambhavi Madan

Manisha Chachra

MeToo in Indian journalism: Questioning access to internet among intersectional women and idea of rehabilitative justice in digital spaces

The advent of LoSHA and MeToo era witnessed an intriguing intersection of technology, politics and gender. The list and name-shame culture of social media has not only displayed changing power dynamics in digital space but an increasing movement towards engendering of internet spaces. The social, political and economic matrix defined by power relationships -- a patriarchy reflected in internet spaces, percolating in our interactions confronted a major challenge when women rose up to claim the same space. Internet space cannot be called a virtual reality as it is a sharp mirror into what is going in the power dynamics of society and politics. My paper broadly seeks to examine this engendering of spatial reality of digital space by looking at various conversations that took place on Twitter around MeToo in Indian journalism. MeToo has been widely understood as narration of one’s tale and how that experiential reality is connected with other women. However, a universalisation of such an experience often neglects intersectional reality attached to women’s experiences -- belonging to different caste, class, ethnicity and other kinds of differences. My paper attempts to question how far MeToo in digital space accommodated the differential aspects of woman as a heterogeneous category. The spatial realities of technological spaces function like a double edged sword-- liberating as well as mobility paralysing. I use the term mobility paralysis to denote a contradiction in digital space-- which might be equally available to all sections of women but not fairly accessible. The accessibility is often a reflection of deep rooted patriarchies and kinship relationships that bind women in same voiceless zone. MeToo in Indian journalism is a case study of how women of different backgrounds access digital spaces in questioning this mobility paralysis and inch towards a certain kind of emancipatory politics. Examining MeToo from the perspective of a social movement emerging on Twitter and Facebook, I aim to scrutinise scope of rehabilitative justice for the accused. The emergence of lists, and claiming of spaces is attached to the question of justice and being guilty or innocent of allegations. Online spaces in the recent times have also emerged as platforms of e-khaps (online khap panchayats with certain gatekeepers of the movement) where screenshot circulation, photoshop technology could be used to garner a public response against a particular person. It is interesting how after MeToo the question was not whether the person is guilty or accused rather how they should abandon their social media accounts and probably go absent virtually. In such a context, it is crucial to question the relationship between justice, one’s digital identity and who owns this identity. If rehabilitative justice is not an option, and apology-seeking is not available, what are we hoping from MeToo? The aim of any name-shame movement must be to reclaim digital space, narrate experiences and also to leave scope for others to respond, and seek justice. The question of justice is also closely linked with how women from intersectional backgrounds access internet, and emancipate themselves.

Meghna Yadav

For most people, the Internet is now synonymous with social media. Likewise, consumption of content on the Internet has shifted. We’ve moved from an earlier design of explicitly going to content-specific websites, to now, simply “logging in” and being presented with curated content spanning multiple areas. The infrastructure for consuming this content, however, remains predominantly screen based, implying a space constraint. Websites must, hence, decide what content users are to be presented with and in what order. In other words, social media must generate itself as a ranked list of content.

In the classical theory of social choice, a set of voters is called to rank a set of alternatives and a social ranking of the alternatives is generated. In this essay, I propose to look at ranking of content as a social choice problem. Ranking rules of different social media platforms can be studied as social welfare functions for how they aggregate the preferences of their voters (i.e. users). Current listings of content could be modelled as the results of previously held rounds of voting. Taking examples, Reddit is built on a structure of outward voting, visceral through ‘upvotes’ and ‘downvotes’, constantly displaying to users the choice they have to alter content ranks on the website. TikTok, on the other hand, relies on taking away most of the voting power of its users.

As the Internet tends towards centralisation, studying how different list ranking rules aggregate our choices and in turn, alter the choices presented to us, becomes important to design a more democratic Internet.

Sarita Bose

Mapping goes local: A study of how Google Maps tracks user’s footprints and creates a ‘For You’ list

The ‘Explore Nearby’ feature in Google Maps has three sections – Explore, Commute and For You. Of this, ‘For You’ section contains ‘Lists based on your local history’ as mentioned by Google itself. The Google Maps auto tracks a user’s movements and creates a digital footprint map and lists up events, programmes, restaurants, shops etc for the user. This research will focus on the ‘For You’ feature of Google Maps and its cultural and social dimensions. The work will focus on how the mapping is done and the logic behind drawing up the list. It will try to find out how the economy of Google Maps works. Why some lists shows up while some doesn’t. What kind of ‘algorithm – economy – user’ matrix is used to make up the list? The work will also try to understand cultural dimensions based on mind mapping techniques of Google. This research will follow three dimensions. The first is the mapping of user’s footprints itself and how the distance covered by a user becomes the user’s own digital existence. The Google Maps automatically asks for reviews of places the user might have visited or passed. The question is what algorithm is Google using to ask for the review? Is it pre-pointed or post-pointed? Thus, we come to the second part. Is Google only listing places that paid it or is it trying to digitally map a user’s area of geographical reach in general. If so, why? This brings us to the third dimension of the research work. What kind of cultural mapping is done of the user? The list the user gets is based on his own history and as more data is added, the more mapping is done. These three dimensions are intricately woven with each other and the work will try to establish this relationship.

Shambhavi Madan

List of lists of lists: Technologies of power, infrastructures of memory

Lists make infinities comprehensible, and thus controllable. By virtue of the ubiquity of cyberspace and the digitized information infrastructures curating reality within these infinities, we are increasingly subjected to curatorial efforts of individuals as well as codes – algorithmic and architectural.

Statistical lists are Foucauldian technologies of power in modern societies; tools for the functioning of governmentality – not just in terms of state control over population phenomena but the governmentality of groups or individuals over themselves. The framework of biopolitics identifies a bureaucracy imposed by determining social classifications through listing and categorizing, within which people must situate themselves and their actions (Foucault, 2008). Thus, the authorship of lists is often reflective of power that allows for the perpetuation of hegemonic constructions of social reality, making the lists themselves sites of struggle.

This paper seeks to contextualize (public-oriented) lists as forms of biopolitical curation that often lie at points of intersection between collective consciousness and social order, through an approach that problematizes the socio-technics of agency and the subjective objectivity of authorship. Although list-making acts such as the National Population Register, NRC, #LoSHA, the electoral roll, the census, and Vivek Agnihotri’s call for a list of “Urban Naxals” all differ in terms of content, intent, and impact, and contain different asymmetries of power, the lowest common denominator lies in their role as producers of public knowledge and consequently, infrastructures of public memory. This approach allows for a reinterpretation of the fundamental duality of lists of and within publics: the functionality of enforcing/maintaining social order, and the phenomenological practise of publicly self-presenting with a (semi-material) manifestation of a collective identity. The former sees the use of lists as tools of population management, enacting citizenship and belonging through forms of inclusion and exclusion; the latter is reflective of the workings of self-autonomy – redefining the authorship of justice and punishment – in networked societies. Thus, a secondary theme in this paper would be to question the change and significance in the role of authorship through a phenomenological comparative of lists that are institutionalised practice versus those that are open and collaborative.

Both the act of list-making and the lists themselves are framed as coalescences of material and imaginary, by juxtaposing the idea of infrastructures as primarily relationalities – i.e. they can’t be theorized in terms of the object alone (Larkin, 2013) – with Latour’s relational ontology of human and non-human actors. The list itself is a non-human object/actant that after emerging as a product of co-construction, takes on an agential role of its own (Latour, 2005). Each of these lists can be considered as a quasi-object, a complex convergence of the technological and the social. Both #LoSHA and the NRC are not mere placeholders being ‘acted upon’, but real and meaningful actors acting as cultural mediators and not intermediaries. The integration of a socio-technical, infrastructural approach with one that emphasizes upon the aesthetics of authorship and public memory allows the subject to be seen as constitutive of an embodied, relational experience as opposed to just existing as a dissociative (re)presentation.

References:

Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979. Trans. G. Burchell. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Larkin, B. 2013. "The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructural." Annual Review of Anthropology. 42:327-343.

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/essays-on-list-selected-abstracts

Envisioning the Role of Open Knowledge in the Implementation of the National Education Policy 2020

Ashwini Lele — 2024-08-27T14:53:13Z

The National Education Policy 2020 brings a significant change in India's educational landscape, representing a comprehensive overhaul to address the evolving developmental imperatives of the country.

This latest report by CIS-A2K delves into the potential role of 'Open Knowledge' players within the framework of the NEP 2020, aiming to provide insights and recommendations for effective implementation. This study focuses on Wikimedia ‘open knowledge’ platform amongst all available digital open knowledge platforms.

Wikimedia initiatives have already been successfully integrated into various higher education institutions, such as Christ University and Goa University, where students engaged in writing and editing Wikipedia articles as part of their coursework. These experiences illustrate how open knowledge platforms can cultivate essential skills such as research, writing, and digital literacy among students.

The NEP 2020 encourages the use of open knowledge systems to support interdisciplinary learning and creativity. By leveraging platforms like Wikipedia, educators can facilitate collaborative learning and critical thinking, aligning with NEP's goals of fostering cognitive and emotional competencies. The report identifies key areas where Wikimedia can contribute, including the development of multilingual content and the enhancement of digital skills.

NEP 2020 presents a unique opportunity to formalize the role of open knowledge ecosystems in education, promoting a shift from rote learning to a more engaging, participatory approach that prepares students for the complexities of the modern world.

Read the report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/envisioning-role-of-open-knowledge-in-implementation-of-national-education-policy

Enlarging the Small Print: A Study on Designing Effective Privacy Notices for Mobile Applications

Meera Manoj — 2016-12-14T16:27:54Z

The Word’s biggest modern lie is often wholly considered to lie in the sentence “I haveread and agreed to the Terms and Conditions.” It is a well-known fact, backed by empirical research that consumers often skip reading cumbersome privacy notices. The reasons for these range from the lengthy nature, complicated legal jargon and inopportune moments when these notices are displayed. This paper seeks to compile and analyse the different simplified designs of privacy notices that have been proposed for mobile applications that encourage consumers to make informed privacy decisions.

Introduction: Ideas of Privacy and Consent Linked with Notices

The Notice and Choice Model

Most modern laws and data privacy principles seek to focus on individual control. As Alan Westin of Columbia University characterises privacy, "it is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to other," [1] Or simply put, personal information privacy is "the ability of the individual to personally control information about himself."[2]

The preferred mechanism for protecting online privacy that has emerged is that of Notice and Choice.[3] The model, identified as "the most fundamental principle" in online privacy,[4] refers toconsumers consenting to privacy policies before availing of an online service. [5]

The following 3 standards of expectations of privacy in electronic communications have emerged in the United States courts:

KATZ TEST: Katz v. United States,[6] a wiretap case, established expectation of privacy as one society is prepared to recognize as ―reasonable. [7]This concept is critical to a court's understanding of a new technology because there is no established precedent to guide its analysis[8]
KYLLO/ KYLLO-KATZ HYBRID TEST: Society's reasonable expectation of privacy is higher when dealing with a new technology that is not ―generally available to the public.[9]This follows the logic that it is reasonable to expect common data collection practices to be used but not rare ones. [10] In Kyllo v. United States [11] law enforcement used a thermal imaging device to observe the relative heat levels inside a house. Though as per Katz the publicly available thermal radiation technology is reasonable, the uncommon means of collection was not. This modification to the Katz standard is extremely important in the context of mobile privacy. Mobile communications may be subdivided into smaller parts of audio from a phone call, e-mail, and data related to a user's current location. Following an application of the hybrid Katz/Kyllo test, the reasonable expectation of privacy in each of those communications would be determined separately[12], by evaluating the general accessibility of the technology required to capture each stream.[13]
DOUBLE CLICK TEST: DoubleClick[14] illustrates the potential problems of transferring consent to a third party, one to whom the user never provided direct consent or is not even aware of. The court held that for DoubleClick, an online advertising network, to collect information from a user it needed only to obtain permission from the website that user accessed, and not from the user himself. The court reasoned that the information the user disclosed to the website was analogous to information one discloses to another person during a conversation. Just as the other party to the conversation would be free to tell his friends about anything that was said, a website should be free to disclose any information it receives from a user's visit after the user has consented to use the website's services.

These interpretations have weakened the standards of online privacy. While the Katz test vaguely hinges on societal expectations, the Kyllo Test to an extent strengthens privacy rights by disallowing uncommon methods of collection, but as the DoubleClick Test illustrates, once the user has consented to such practices he cannot object to the same. There have been sugestions to consider personal information as property when it shares features of property like location data.[15] It is fixed when it is in storage, it has a monetary value, and it is sold and traded on a regular basis. This would create a standard where consent is required for third-party access. [16] Consent will then play a more pivotal role in affixing liability.

The notice and choice mechanism is designed to put individuals in charge of the collection and use of their personal information. In theory, the regime preserves user autonomy by putting the individual in charge of decisions about the collection and use of personal information. [17] Notice and choice is asserted as a substitute for regulation because it is thought to be more flexible, inexpensive to implement, and easy to enforce.[18] Additionally, notice and choice can legitimize an information practice, whatever it may be, by obtaining an individual's consent and suit individual privacy preferences. [19]

However, the notice and choice mechanism is often criticized for leaving users uninformed-or misinformed, at least-as people rarely see, read, or understand privacy notices. [20] Moreover, few people opt out of the collection, use, or disclosure of their data when presented with the choice to do so.[21]

Amber Sinha of the Centre for Internet and Society argues that consent in these scenarios Is rarely meaningful as consumers fail to read/access privacy policies, understand the consequences and developers do not provide them the choice to opt out of a particular data practice while still being allowed to use their services. [22]

Of particular concern is the use of software applications (apps) designed to work on mobile devices. Estimates place the current number of apps available for download at more than 1.5 million, and that number is growing daily.[23] A 2011 Google study, "The Mobile Movement," identified that mobile devices are viewed as extensions of ourselves that we share with deeply personal relations with, raising fundamental questions of how apps and other mobile communications influence our privacy decision-making.

Recent research indicates that mobile device users have concerns about the privacy implications of using apps. [24] The research finds that almost 60 percent of respondents ages 50 and older decided not to install an app because of privacy concerns (see figure 1).[25]

Because no standards currently exist for providing privacy notice disclosure for apps, consumers may find it difficult to understand what data the app is collecting, how those data will be used, and what rights users have in limiting the collection and use of their data. Many apps do not provide users with privacy policy statements, making it impossible for app users to know the privacy implications of using a particular app. [26]Apps can make use of any or all of the device's functions, including contact lists, calendars, phone and messaging logs, locational information, Internet searches and usage, video and photo galleries, and other possibly sensitive information. For example, an app that allows the device to function as a scientific calculator may be accessing contact lists, locational data, and phone records even though such access is unnecessary for the app to function properly. [27]

Other apps may have privacy policies that are confusing or misleading. For example, an analysis of health and fitness apps found that more than 30 percent of the apps studied shared data with someone not disclosed in the app's privacy policy.[28]

Types of E-Contracts

Margaret Radin distinguishes two models of direct e-contracts based on consent as -"contract-as-consent" and "contract-as-product." [29]

The contract-as-consent model is the traditional picture of how binding commitment is arrived at between two humans. It involves a meeting of the minds which implies that terms be understood, alternatives be available, and probably that bargaining be possible.

In the contract-as-product model, the terms are part of the product, not a conceptually separate bargain; physical product plus terms are a package deal. For example the fact that a chip inside an electronics item will wear out after a year is an unseen contract creating a take-it-or-leave-it choice not to buy the package.

The product-as-consent model defies traditional ideas of consent and raises questions of whether consent is meaningful. Modern day e-contracts such as click wrap, shrink wrap, viral contracts and machine-made contracts which form the privacy policy of several apps have a product-as-consent approach where consumers are given the take-it-or-leave-it option.

Mobile application privacy notices fall into the product-as-consent model. Consumers often have to click "I agree" to all the innumerable Terms and Conditions in order to install the app. For instance terms that the fitness app will collect biometric data is a feature of the product that is non-negotiable. It is a classic take-it-or-leave-it approach where consumers compromise on privacy to avail services.

Contracts that facilitate these transactions are generally long and complicated and often agreed to by consumers without reading them.

Craswell strikes a balance in applying the liability rule to point out that as explaining the meaning of extensive fine print would be very costly to point out it could be efficient to affix the liability rule not as a written contract but rather on "reasonable" terms. This means that if a fitness app collects sensitive financial information, which is unreasonable given its core activities, then even if the user has consented to the same in the privacy policy's fine print the contract should be capable of being challenged.

The Concept of Privacy by Design

Privacy needs to be considered from the very beginning of system development. For this reason, Dr. Anne Cavoukian [30] coined the term "Privacy by Design", that is, privacy should be taken into account throughout the entire engineering process from the earliest design stages to the operation of the productive system. This holistic approach is promising, but it does not come with mechanisms to integrate privacy in the development processes of a system. The privacy-by-design approach, i.e. that data protection safeguards should be built into products and services from the earliest stage of development, has been addressed by the European Commission in their proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation. This proposal uses the terms "privacy by design" and "data protection by design" synonymously.

The 7 Foundational Principles[31] of Privacy by Design are:

Proactive not Reactive; Preventative not Remedial
Privacy as the Default Setting
Privacy Embedded into Design
Full Functionality - Positive-Sum, not Zero-Sum
End-to-End Security - Full Lifecycle Protection
Visibility and Transparency - Keep it Open
Respect for User Privacy - Keep it User-Centric

Several terms have been introduced to describe types of data that need to be protected. A term very prominently used by industry is "personally identifiable information (PII)", i.e., data that can be related to an individual. Similarly, the European data protection framework centres on "personal data". However, some authors argue that this falls short since also data that is not related to a single individual might still have an impact on the privacy of groups, e.g., an entire group might be discriminated with the help of certain information. For data of this category the term "privacy-relevant data" has been used. [32]

An essential part of Privacy by Design is that data subjects should be adequately informed whenever personal data is processed. Whenever data subjects use a system, they should be informed about which information is processed, for what purpose, by which means and who it is shared is with. They should be informed about their data access rights and how to exercise them.[33]

Whereas system design very often does not or barely consider the end-users' interests, but primarily focuses on owners and operators of the system, it is essential to account the privacy and security interests of all parties involved by informing them about associated advantages (e.g. security gains) and disadvantages (e.g. costs, use of resources, less personalisation). By creating this system of "multilateral security" the demands of all parties must be realized.[34]

The Concept of Data Minimization

The most basic privacy design strategy is MINIMISE, which states that the amount of personal data that is processed should be restricted to the minimal amount possible. By ensuring that no, or no unnecessary, data is collected, the possible privacy impact of a system is limited. Applying the MINIMISE strategy means one has to answer whether the processing of personal data is proportional (with respect to the purpose) and whether no other, less invasive, means exist to achieve the same purpose. The decision to collect personal data can be made at design time and at run time, and can take various forms. For example, one can decide not to collect any information about a particular data subject at all. Alternatively, one can decide to collect only a limited set of attributes.^{^[35]}

If a company collects and retains large amounts of data, there is an increased risk that the data will be used in a way that departs from consumers' reasonable expectations.^{^[36]}

There are three privacy protection goals^{^[37]} that data minimization and privacy by design seek to achieve. These privacy protection goals are:

Unlinkability - To prevent data being linked to an identifiable entity
Transparency - The information has to be available before, during and after the processing takes place.
Intervenability - Those who provide their data must have means of intervention into all ongoing or planned privacy-relevant data processing

Spiekermann and Cranor raised an intriguing point in their paper, they argued that those companies that employ privacy by design and data minimization practices in their applications should be allowed to skip the need for privacy policies and forgo need for notice and choice features. ^{^[38]}

To Summarise: The emerging model and legal dialogue that regulates online privacy is that of Notice and Choice which has been severely criticised for not creating informed choice making processes. E-contracts such as agreeing to privacy notices follow the consent-as-product model. When there is extensive fine print liability must be affixed on the basis of reasonable terms. Privacy notices must incorporate the concepts of Privacy by Design through providing complete information and collecting minimum data.

Features of Privacy Notices in the Current Mobile Ecosystem

A privacy notice inform a system's users or a company's customers of data practices involving personal information. Internal practices with regard to the collection, processing, retention, and sharing of personal information should be made transparent.

Each app a user chooses to install on his smartphone can access different information stored on that device. There is no automatic access to user information. Each application has access only to the data that it pulls into its own 'sandbox'.

The sandbox is a set of fine-grained controls limiting an application's access to files, preferences, network resources, hardware etc. Applications cannot access each other's sandboxes.[39] The data that makes it into the sandbox is normally defined by user permissions.[40] These are a set of user defined controls[41]and evidence that a user consents to the application accessing that data. [42]

To gain permission mobile apps generally display privacy notices that explicitly seek consent. These can leverage different channels, including a privacy policy document posted on a website or linked to from mobile app stores or mobile apps. For example, Google Maps uses a traditional clickwrap structure that requires the user to agree to a list of terms and conditions when the program is initially launched. [43] Foursquare, on the other hand, embeds its terms in a privacy policy posted on its website, and not within the app. [44]

This section explains the features of current privacy notices on the 4 parameters of stage (at which the notice is given), content, length and user comprehension. Under each of these parameters the associated problems are identified and alternatives are suggested.

(1) Timing and Frequency of Notice:

This sub-section identifies the various stages that notices are given and highlights their advantages, disadvantages and makes recommendations. It concludes with the findings of a study on what the ideal stage to provide notice is. This is supplemented with 2 critical models to address the common problems of habituation and contextualization.

Studies indicate that timing of notices or the stage at which they are given impact how consumer's recall and comprehend them and make choices accordingly. [45] I ntroducing only a 15-second delay between the presentation of privacy notices and privacy relevant choices can be enough to render notices ineffective at driving user behaviour.[46]

Google Android and Apple iOS provide notices at different times. At the time of writing, Android users are shown a list of requested permissions while the app is being installed, i.e., after the user has chosen to install the app. In contrast, iOS shows a dialog during app use, the first time a permission is requested by an app. This is also referred to as a "just-in-time" notification. [47]

The following are the stages in which a notice can be given:

1) NOTICE AT SETUP: Notice can be provided when a system is used for the first time[48]. For instance, as part of a software installation process users are shown and have to accept the system's terms of use.

a) Advantages: Users can inspect a system's data practices before using or purchasing it. The system developer is benefitted due to liability and transparency reasons that gain user trust. It provides the opportunity to explain unexpected data practices that may have a benign purpose in the context of the system[49]. It can even impact purchase decisions. Egelman et al. found that participants were more likely to pay a premium at a privacy-protective website when they saw privacy information in search results, as opposed to on the website after selecting a search result[50].

b) Disadvantages: Users have become largely habituated to install time notices and ignore them[51]. Users may have difficulty making informed decisions because they have not used the system yet and cannot fully assess its utility or weigh privacy trade-offs. They may also be focused on the primary task, namely completing the setup process to be able to use the system, and fail to pay attention to notices [52].

c) Recommendations: Privacy notices provided at setup time should be concise and focus on data practices immediately relevant to the primary user rather than presenting extensive terms of service. Integrating privacy information into other materials that explain the functionality of the system may further increase the chance that users do not ignore it.[53]

2) JUST IN TIME NOTICE: A privacy notice can be shown when a data practice is active, for example when information is being collected, used, or shared. Such notices are referred to as "contextualized" or "just-in-time" notices[54].

a) Advantages: They enhance transparency and enable users to make privacy decisions in context. Users have also been shown to more freely share information if they are given relevant explanations at the time of data collection[55].

b) Disadvantages: Habituation can occur if these are shown too frequently. Moreover in apps such as gaming apps users generally tend to ignore notices displayed during usage.

c) Recommendations: Consumers can be given notice the first time a particular type of information is accessed such as email and then be given the option to opt out of further notifications. A Consumer may then seek to opt out of notices on email but choose to view all notices on health information that is accessed depending on his privacy priorities.

3) CONTEXT-DEPENDENT NOTICES: The user's and system's context can also be considered to show additional notices or controls if deemed necessary [56]. Relevant context may be determined by a change of location, additional users included in or receiving the data, and other situational parameters. Some locations may be particularly sensitive, therefore users may appreciate being reminded that they are sharing their location when they are in a new place, or when they are sharing other information that may be sensitive in a specific context. Facebook introduced a privacy checkup message in 2014 that is displayed under certain conditions before posting publicly. It acts as a "nudge" [57] to make users aware that the post will be public and to help them manage who can see their posts.

a) Advantages: It may help users make privacy decisions that are more aligned with their desired level of privacy in the respective situation and thus foster trust in the system.

b) Disadvantages: Challenges in providing context-dependent notices are detecting relevant situations and context changes. Furthermore, determining whether a context is relevant to an individual's privacy concerns could in itself require access to that person's sensitive data and privacy preferences. [58]

c) Recommendations: Standards must be evolved to determine a contextual model based on user preferences.

4) PERIODIC NOTICES: These are shown the first couple of times a data practice occurs, or every time. The sensitivity of the data practice may determine the appropriate frequency.

a) Advantages: It can further help users maintain awareness of privacy-sensitive information flows especially when data practices are largely invisible [59]such as in patient monitoring apps. This helps provide better control options.

b) Disadvantages: Repeating notices can lead to notice fatigue and habituation[60].

c) Recommendations: Frequency of these notices needs to be balanced with user needs. [61] Data practices that are reasonably expected as part of the system may require only a single notice, whereas practices falling outside the expected context of use which the user is potentially unaware of may warrant repeated notices. Periodic notices should be relevant to users in order to be not perceived as annoying. A combined notice can remind about multiple ongoing data practices. Rotating warnings or changing their look can also further reduce habituation effects [62]

5) PERSISTENT NOTICES: A persistent indicator is typically non-blocking and may be shown whenever a data practices is active, for instance when information is being collected continuously or when information is being transmitted[63]. When inactive or not shown, persistent notices also indicate that the respective data practice is currently not active. For instance, Android and iOS display a small icon in the status bar whenever an application accesses the user's location.

a) Advantages: These are easy to understand and not annoying increasing their functionality.

b) Disadvantages: These ambient indicators often go unnoticed.[64] Most systems can only accommodate such indicators for a small number of data practices.

c) Recommendations: Persistent indicators should be designed to be noticeable when they are active. A system should only provide a small set of persistent indicators to indicate activity of especially critical data practices which the user can also specify.

6) NOTICE ON DEMAND: Users may also actively seek privacy information and request a privacy notice. A typical example is posting a privacy policy at a persistent location[65] and providing links to it from the app. [66]

a) Advantages: Privacy sensitive users are given the option to better explore policies and make informed decisions.

b) Disadvantages: The current model of a link to a long privacy policy on a website will discourage users from requesting for information that they cannot fully understand and do not have time to read.

c) Recommendations: Better option are privacy settings interfaces or privacy dashboards within the system that provide information about data practices; controls to manage consent; summary reports of what information has been collected, used, and shared by the system; as well as options to manage or delete collected information. Contact information for a privacy office should be provided to enable users to make written requests.

Which of these Stages is the Most Ideal?

In a series of experiments, Rebecca Balekabo and others [67] have identified the impact of timing on smartphone privacy notices. The following 5 conditions were imposed on participants who were later tested on their levels of recall of the notices through questions:

Not Shown: The participants installed and used the app without being shown a privacy notice
App Store: Notice was shown at the time of installation at the app store
App store Big: A large notice occupying more screen space was shown at the app store
App Store Popup: A smaller popup was displayed at the app Store
During use: Notice was shown during usage of the app

The results (Figure) suggest that even if a notice contains information users care about, it is unlikely to be recalled if only shown in the app store and more effective when shown during app usage.

Seeing the app notice during app usage resulted in better recall. Although participants remembered the notice shown after app use as well as in other points of app use, they found that it was not a good point for them to make decisions about the app because they had already used it, and participants preferred when the notice was shown during or before app usage.

Hence depending on the app there are optimal times to show smartphone privacy notices to maximize attention and recall with preference being given to the beginning of or during app use.

However several of these stages as outlined baove face the disadvantages of habituation and uncertainty on contextualization. The following 2 models have been proposed to address this:

Habituation

When notices are shown too frequently, users may become habituated. Habituation may lead to users disregarding warnings, often without reading or comprehending the notice[68]. To reduce habituation from app permission notices, Felt et al. identified a tested method to determine which permission requests should be emphasized [69]

They categorized actions on the basis of revertibility, severability, initiation, alterable and approval nature (Explained in figure) and applied the following permission granting mechanisms :

Automatic Grant: It must be requested by the developer, but it is granted without user involvement.
Trusted UI elements: They appear as part of an application's workflow, but clicking on them imbues the application with a new permission. To ensure that applications cannot trick users, trusted UI elements can be controlled only by the platform. For example, a user who is sending an SMS message from a third-party application will ultimately need to press a button; using trusted UI means the platform provides the button.
Confirmation Dialog: Runtime consent dialogs interrupt the user's flow by prompting them to allow or deny a permission and often contain descriptions of the risk or an option to remember the decision.
Install-time warning: These integrate permission granting into the installation flow. Installation screens list the application's requested permissions. In some platforms (e.g., Facebook), the user can reject some install-time permissions. In other platforms (e.g., Android and Windows 8 Metro), the user must approve all requested permissions or abort installation.[70]

Based on these conditions the following sequential model that the system must adopt was proposed to determine frequency of displaying notices:

Initial tests have proven to be successful in reducing habituation effects and it is an important step towards designing and displaying privacy notices.

Contextualization

Bastian Koning and others, in their paper "Towards Context Adaptive Privacy Decisions in Ubiquitous Computing" [71] propose a system for supporting a user's privacy decisions in situ, i.e., in the context they are required in, following the notion of contextual integrity. It approximates the user's privacy preferences and adapts them to the current context. The system can then either recommend sharing decisions and actions or autonomously reconfigure privacy settings. It is divided into the following stages:

Context Model: A distinction is created between the decision level and system level. The system level enables context awareness but also filters context information and maps it to semantic concepts required for decisions. Semantic mappings can be derived from a pre-defined or learnt world model. On the decision level, the context model only contains components relevant for privacy decision making. For example: An activity involves the user, is assigned a type, i.e., a semantic label, such as home or work, based on system level input.

Privacy Decision Engine : The context model allows to reason about which context items are affected by a context transition. When a transition occurs, the privacy decision engine (PDE) evaluates which protection worthy context items are affected. Protection worthiness (or privacy relevance) of context items for a given context are determined by the user's privacy preferences that are This serves as a basis for adapting privacy preferences and is subsequently further adjusted to the user by learning from the user's explicit decisions, behaviour, and reaction to system actions. [72] approximated by the system from the knowledge base.

The user's personality type is determined before initial system use to select a basic privacy profile.

It may also be possible that the privacy preference cannot be realized in the current context. In that case, the privacy policy would suggest terminating the activity. For each privacy policy variant a confidence score is calculated based on how well it fits the adapted privacy preference. Based on the confidence scores, the PDE selects the most appropriate policy candidate or triggers user involvement if the confidence is below a certain threshold determined by the user's personality and previous privacy decisions.

Realization and Enforcement: The selected privacy policy must be realized on the system level. This is by combining territorial privacy and information privacy aspects. The private territory is defined by a territorial privacy boundary that separates desired and undesired entities.

Granularity adjustments for specific Information items is defined. For example, instead of the user's exact position only the street address or city can be provided.

ADVANTAGES: The personalization to a specific user has the advantage of better emulating that user's privacy decision process. It also helps to decide when to involve the user in the decision process by providing recommendations only and when privacy decisions can be realized autonomously.

DISADVANTAGES: The entire model hinges on the ability of the system to accurately determine user profile before the user starts using it and not after, when preferences can be more accurately determined. There is no provision for the user to pick his own privacy profile, it is all system determined taking away an element of consent in the very beginning. As all further preferences are adapted on this base, it is possible that the system may not deliver. The use of confident scores is an approximation that can compromise privacy by a small numerical margin of difference.

However it is a useful insight on techniques of contextualization. Depending on the environment, different strategies for policy realization and varying degrees of enforcement are possible[73].

Length

The length of privacy policies is often cited as one reason they are so commonly ignored. Studies show privacy policies are hard to read, read infrequently, and do not support rational decision making. [74] Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor in their seminal study, "The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies" estimated that the the average length of privacy policies is 2,500 words. Using the reading speed of 250 words per minute which is typical for those who have completed secondary education, the average policy would take 10 minutes to read.

The researchers also investigated how quickly people could read privacy policies when they were just skimming it for pertinent details. They timed 93 people as they skimmed a 934-word privacy policy and answered multiple choice questions on its content.

Though some people took under a minute and others up to 42 minutes, the bulk of the subjects of the research took between three and six minutes to skim the policy, which itself was just over a third of the size of the average policy.

The researchers used their data to estimate how much it costs to read the privacy policy of every site they visit once a year if their time was charged for and arrived at a mind boggling figure of $652 billion.

Problems

Though the figure of $652 billion has limited usefulness, because people rarely read whole policies and cannot charge anyone for the time it takes to do this, the researchers concluded that readers who do conduct a cost-benefit analysis might decide not to read any policies.

"Preliminary work from a small pilot study in our laboratory revealed that some Internet users believe their only serious risk online is they may lose up to $50 if their credit card information is stolen. For people who think that is their primary risk, our point estimates show the value of their time to read policies far exceeds this risk. Even for our lower bound estimates of the value of time, it is not worth reading privacy policies though it may be worth skimming them," said the research. This implies that seeing their only risk as credit card fraud suggests Internet users likely do not understand the risks to their privacy. As an FTC report recently stated, "it is unclear whether consumers even understand that their information is being collected, aggregated, and used to deliver advertising."[75]"

Recommendations

If the privacy community can find ways to reduce the time cost of reading policies, it may be easier to convince Internet users to do so. For example, if consumers can move from needing to read policies word-for-word and only skim policies by providing useful headings, or with ways to hide all but relevant information in a layered format and thus reduce the effective length of the policies, more people may be willing to read them. [76] Apps can also adopt short form notices that summarize and link to the larger more complete notice displayed elsewhere. These short form notices need not be legally binding and must candidate that it does not cover all types of data collection but only the most relevant ones. [77]

Content

In an attempt to gain permission most privacy policies inform users about: (1) the type of information collected; and (2) the purpose for collecting that information.

Standard privacy notices generally cover the points of:

Methods Of Collection And Usage Of Personal Information
The Cookie Policy

Sharing Of Customer Information [78]

Certified Information Privacy Professionals divide notices into the following sequential sections[79]:

i. Policy Identification Details: Defines the policy name, version and description.

ii. P3P-Based Components: Defines policy attributes that would apply if the policy is exported to a P3P format. [80] Such attributes would include: policy URLs, organization information, PII access and dispute resolution procedures.

iii. Policy Statements and Related Elements: Groups, Purposes and PII Types-Policy statements define the individuals able to access certain types of information, for certain pre-defined purposes.

Problems

Applications tend to define the type of data broadly in an attempt to strike a balance between providing enough information so that application may gain consent to access a user's data and being broad enough to avoid ruling out specific information.[81]

This leads to usage of vague terms like "information collected may include."[82]

Similarly the purpose of the data acquisition is also very broad. For example, a privacy policy may state that user data can be collected for anything related to ―"improving the content of the Service." As the scope of ―improving the content of the Service is never defined, any usage could conceivably fall within that category.[83]

Several apps create user social profiles based on their online preferences to promote targeted marketing which is cleverly concealed in phrases like "we may also draw upon this Personal Information in order to adapt the Services of our community to your needs". [84] For instance Bees & Pollen is a "predictive personalization" platform for games and apps that "uses advanced predictive algorithms to detect complex, non-trivial correlations between conversion patterns and users' DNA signatures, thus enabling it to automatically serve each user a personalized best-fit game options, in real-time." In reality it analyses over 100 user attributes, including activity on Facebook, spending behaviours, marital status, and location.[85]

Notices also often mislead consumers into believing that their information will not be shared with third parties using the terms "unaffiliated third parties." Other affiliated companies within the corporate structure of the service provider may have access to user's data for marketing and other purposes. [86]

There are very few choices to opt-out of certain practices, such as sharing data for marketing purposes. Thus, users are effectively left with a take-it-or-leave-it choice - give up your privacy or go elsewhere.[87]Users almost always grant consent if it is required to receive the service they want which raises the query if this consent is meaningful[88].

Recommendations

The following recommendations have emerged:

Notice - Companies should provide consumers with clear, conspicuous notice that accurately describe their information practices.

Consumer Choice - Companies should provide consumers with the opportunity to decide (in the form of opting-out) if it may disclose personal information to unaffiliated third parties.
Access and Correction - Companies should provide consumers with the opportunity to access and correct personal information collected about the consumer.
Security - Companies must adopt reasonable security measures in order to protect the privacy of personal information. Possible security measures include: administrative security, physical security and technical security.
Enforcement - Companies should have systems through which they can enforce the privacy policy. This may be managed by the company, or an independent third party to ensure compliance. Examples of popular third parties include BBBOnLine and TRUSTe.[89]
Standardization : Several researchers and organizations have recommended a standardized privacy notice format that covers certain essential points. [90] However as displaying a privacy notice in itself is voluntary it is unpredictable whether companies would willingly adopt a standardized model. Moreover with the app market burgeoning with innovations a standard format may not cover all emergent data practices.

Comprehension

The FTC states that "the notice-and-choice model, as implemented, has led to long, incomprehensible privacy policies that consumers typically do not read, let alone understand. the question is not whether consumers should be given a say over unexpected uses of their data; rather, the question is how to provide simplified notice and choice"[91].

Notably, in a survey conducted by Zogby International, 93% of adults - and 81% of teens - indicated they would take more time to read terms and conditions for websites if they were written in clearer language.[92]

Most privacy policies are in natural language format: companies explain their practices in prose. One noted disadvantage to current natural language policies is that companies can choose which information to present, which does not necessarily solve the problem of information asymmetry between companies and consumers. Further, companies use what have been termed "weasel words" - legalistic, ambiguous, or slanted phrases - to describe their practices [93].

In a study by Aleecia M. McDonald and others[94], it was found that accuracy in what users comprehend span a wide range. An average of 91% of participants answered correctly when asked about cookies, 61% answered correctly about opt out links, 60% understood when their email address would be "shared" with a third party, and only 46% answered correctly regarding telemarketing. Participants found those questions harder which substituted vague or complicated terms to refer to practices such as telemarketing by "the information you provide may be used for marketing services." Overall accuracy was a mere 33%.

Problems

Natural language policies are often long and require college-level reading skills. Furthermore, there are no standards for which information is disclosed, no standard place to find particular information, and data practices are not described using consistent language. These policies are "long, complicated, and full of jargon and change frequently."[95]

Kent Walker list five problems that privacy notices typically suffer from -

a) overkill - long and repetitive text in small print,

b) irrelevance - describing situations of little concern to most consumers,

c) opacity - broad terms the reflect the truth that is impossible to track and control all the information collected and stored,

d) non-comparability - simplification required to achieve comparability will lead to compromising accuracy, and

e) inflexibility - failure to keep pace with new business models. [96]

Recommendations

Researchers advocate a more succinct and simpler standard for privacy notices,[97] such as representing the information in the form of a table. [98] However, studies show only an insignificant improvement in the understanding by consumers when privacy policies are represented in graphic formats like tables and labels. [99]

There are also recommendations to adopt a multi-layered approach where the relevant information is summarized through a short notice.[100] This is backed by studies that consumers find layered policies easier to understand. [101] However they were less accurate in the layered format especially with parts that were not summarized. This suggests participants that did not continue to the full policy when the information they sought was not available on the short notice. Unless it is possible to identify all of the topics users care about and summarize to one page, the layered notice effectively hides information and reduces transparency. It has also been pointed out that it is impossible to convey complex data policies in simple and clear language. [102]

Consumers often struggle to map concepts such as third party access to the terms used in policies. This is also because companies with identical practices often convey different information, and these differences reflected in consumer's ability to understand the policies. These policies may need an educational component so readers understand what it means for a site to engage in a given practice[103]. However it is unlikely that when readers fail to take time to read the policy that they will read up on additional educational components.

[1] Amber Sinha http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-critique-of-consent-in-information-privacy

[2] Wang, et al., 1998) Milberg, et al. (1995)

[3] See e.g., White House, Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights (2012) http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2012/02/23/we-can-t-wait-obama-administration-unveils-blueprint-privacy-bill-rights; Fed. Trade Comm'n, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Business and Policy Makers (2012) http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commissionreport-protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations/120326privacyreport.pdf.

[4] Fed. Trade Comm'n, Privacy Online: A Report to Congress 7 (June 1998), available at www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/priv-23a.pdf.

[5] U.S. Department of Commerce , Internet Policy Task Force, Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework 20 (Dec. 16, 2010) (full-text).

[6] 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

[7] Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 241 (1986)

[8] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=iplj

[9] Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 241 (1986)

[10] Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 (―[T]he technology enabling human flight has exposed to public view (and hence, we have said, to official observation) uncovered portions of the house and its curtilage that once were private.‖).

[11] Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27

[12] See Katz, 389 U.S. at 352 (―But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye-it was the uninvited ear. He did not shed his right to do so simply because he made his calls from a place where he might be seen.‖).

[13] See United States v. Ahrndt, No. 08-468-KI, 2010 WL 3773994, at *4 (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2010).

[14] In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

[15] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=iplj

[16] See Michael A. Carrier, Against Cyberproperty, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1485, 1486 (2007) (arguing against creating a right to exclude users from making electronic contact to their network as one that exceeds traditional property notions).

[17] See M. Ryan Calo, Against Notice Skepticism in Privacy (and Elsewhere), 87 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1027, 1049 (2012) (citing Paula J. Dalley, The Use and Misuse of Disclosure as a Regulatory System, 34 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1089, 1093 (2007) ("[D]isclosure schemes comport with the prevailing political philosophy in that disclosure preserves individual choice while avoiding direct governmental interference.")).

[18] See Calo, supra note 10, at 1048; see also Omri Ben-Shahar & Carl E. Schneider, The Failure of Mandated Disclosure, 159 U. PA. L. REV. 647, 682 (noting that notice "looks cheap" and "looks easy").

[19] Mark MacCarthy, New Directions in Privacy: Disclosure, Unfairness and Externalities, 6 I/S J. L. & POL'Y FOR INFO. SOC'Y 425, 440 (2011) (citing M. Ryan Calo, A Hybrid Conception of Privacy Harm Draft-Privacy Law Scholars Conference 2010, p. 28).

[20] Daniel J. Solove, Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1879, 1885 (2013) (citing Jon Leibowitz, Fed. Trade Comm'n, So Private, So Public: Individuals, the Internet & the Paradox of Behavioral Marketing, Remarks at the FTC Town Hall Meeting on Behavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, & Technology (Nov. 1, 2007), available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/leibowitz/071031ehavior/pdf). Paul Ohm refers to these issues as "information-quality problems." See Paul Ohm, Branding Privacy, 97 MINN. L. REV. 907, 930 (2013). Daniel J. Solove refers to this as "the problem of the uninformed individual." See Solove, supra note 17

[21] See Edward J. Janger & Paul M. Schwartz, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Information Privacy, and the Limits of Default Rules, 86 MINN. L. REV. 1219, 1230 (2002) (stating that according to one survey, "only 0.5% of banking customers had exercised their opt-out rights").

[22] See Amber Sinha A Critique of Consent in Information Privacy http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-critique-of-consent-in-information-privacy

[23] Leigh Shevchik, "Mobile App Industry to Reach Record Revenue in 2013," New Relic (blog), April 1, 2013, http://blog.newrelic.com/2013/04/01/mobile-apps-industry-to-reach-record-revenue-in-2013/.

[24] Jan Lauren Boyles, Aaron Smith, and Mary Madden, "Privacy and Data Management on Mobile Devices," Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC, September 5, 2012.

[25] http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/cons_prot/2014/improving-mobile-device-privacy-disclosures-AARP-ppi-cons-prot.pdf

[26] "Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade," Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, December 2012

[27] http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/cons_prot/2014/improving-mobile-device-privacy-disclosures-AARP-ppi-cons-prot.pdf

[28] Linda Ackerman, "Mobile Health and Fitness Applications and Information Privacy," Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, San Diego, CA, July 15, 2013.

[29] Margaret Jane Radin, Humans, Computers, and Binding Commitment, 75 IND. L.J. 1125, 1126 (1999). http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2199&context=ilj

[30] William Aiello, Steven M. Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Ran Canetti, John Ioannidis, Angelos D. Keromytis, and Omer Reingold. Just fast keying: Key agreement in a hostile internet. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 7(2):242-273, 2004.

[31] Privacy By Design The 7 Foundational Principles by Anne Cavoukian https://www.ipc.on.ca/images/resources/7foundationalprinciples.pdf

[32] G. Danezis, J. Domingo-Ferrer, M. Hansen, J.-H. Hoepman, D. Le M´etayer, R. Tirtea, and S. Schiffner. Privacy and Data Protection by Design - from policy to engineering. report, ENISA, Dec. 2014.

[33] G. Danezis, J. Domingo-Ferrer, M. Hansen, J.-H. Hoepman, D. Le M´etayer, R. Tirtea, and S. Schiffner. Privacy and Data Protection by Design - from policy to engineering. report, ENISA, Dec. 2014.

[34] G. Danezis, J. Domingo-Ferrer, M. Hansen, J.-H. Hoepman, D. Le M´etayer, R. Tirtea, and S. Schiffner. Privacy and Data Protection by Design - from policy to engineering. report, ENISA, Dec. 2014.

^{^[35]} John Frank Weaver, We Need to Pass Legislation on Artificial Intelligence Early and Often, SLATE FUTURE TENSE (Sept. 12, 2014),http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/09/12/we_need_to_pass_artificial_intelligence_laws_early_and_often.html

^{^[36]} Margaret Jane Radin, Humans, Computers, and Binding Commitment, 75 IND. L.J. 1125, 1126 (1999).

^{^[37]} Richard Warner & Robert Sloan, Beyond Notice and Choice: Privacy, Norms, and Consent, J. High Tech. L. (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/568

^{^[38]} Engineering Privacy by Sarah Spiekermann, Lorrie Faith Cranor :: SSRN

[39] iOS Application Programming Guide: The Application Runtime Environment, APPLE, http://developer.apple.com/library/ ios/#documentation/iphone/conceptual/iphoneosprogrammingguide/RuntimeEnvironment /RuntimeEnvironment.html (last updated Feb. 24, 2011)

[40] Security and Permissions, ANDROID DEVELOPERS, http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/security/security.html (last updated Sept. 13, 2011).

[41] iOS Application Programming Guide: The Application Runtime Environment, APPLE, http://developer.apple.com/library/ ios/#documentation/iphone/conceptual/iphoneosprogrammingguide/RuntimeEnvironment /RuntimeEnvironment.html (last updated Feb. 24, 2011)

[42] See Katherine Noyes, Why Android App Security is Better Than for the iPhone, PC WORLD BUS. CTR. (Aug. 6, 2010, 4:20 PM), http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/202758/why_android_app_security_is_be tter_than_for_the_iphone.html; see also About Permissions for Third-Party Applications, BLACKBERRY, http://docs.blackberry.com/en/smartphone_users/deliverables/22178/ About_permissions_for_third-party_apps_50_778147_11.jsp (last visited Sept. 29, 2011); Security and Permissions, supra note 76.

[43] Peter S. Vogel, A Worrisome Truth: Internet Privacy is Impossible, TECHNEWSWORLD (June 8, 2011, 5:00 AM), http://www.technewsworld.com/ story/72610.html.

[44] Privacy Policy, FOURSQUARE, http://foursquare.com/legal/privacy (last updated Jan. 12, 2011)

[45] N. S. Good, J. Grossklags, D. K. Mulligan, and J. A. Konstan. Noticing Notice: A Large-scale Experiment on the Timing of Software License Agreements. In Proc. of CHI. ACM, 2007.

[46] I. Adjerid, A. Acquisti, L. Brandimarte, and G. Loewenstein. Sleights of Privacy: Framing, Disclosures, and the Limits of Transparency. In Proc. of SOUPS. ACM, 2013.

[47] http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2810000/2808119/p63-balebako.pdf?ip=106.51.36.200&id=2808119&acc=OA&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E35B5BCE80D07AAD9&CFID=801296199&CFTOKEN=33661544&__acm__=1466052980_2f265a2442ea3394aa1ebab7e6449933

[48] Microsoft. Privacy Guidelines for Developing Software Products and Services. Technical Report version 3.1, 2008.

[49] Microsoft. Privacy Guidelines for Developing Software Products and Services. Technical Report version 3.1, 2008.

[50] S. Egelman, J. Tsai, L. F. Cranor, and A. Acquisti. Timing is everything?: the effects of timing and placement of online privacy indicators. In Proc. CHI '09. ACM, 2009.

[51] R. B¨ohme and S. K¨opsell. Trained to accept?: A field experiment on consent dialogs. In Proc. CHI '10. ACM, 2010

[52] N. S. Good, J. Grossklags, D. K. Mulligan, and J. A. Konstan. Noticing notice: a large-scale experiment on the timing of software license agreements. In Proc. CHI '07. ACM, 2007.

[53] N. S. Good, J. Grossklags, D. K. Mulligan, and J. A. Konstan. Noticing notice: a large-scale experiment on the timing of software license agreements. In Proc. CHI '07. ACM, 2007.

[54] Microsoft. Privacy Guidelines for Developing Software Products and Services. Technical Report version 3.1, 2008.

[55] A. Kobsa and M. Teltzrow. Contextualized communication of privacy practices and personalization benefits: Impacts on users' data sharing and purchase behavior. In Proc. PETS '05. Springer, 2005.

[56] F. Schaub, B. K¨onings, and M. Weber. Context-adaptive privacy: Leveraging context awareness to support privacy decision making. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 14(1):34-43, 2015.

[57] E. Choe, J. Jung, B. Lee, and K. Fisher. Nudging people away from privacy-invasive mobile apps through visual framing. In Proc. INTERACT '13. Springer, 2013.

[58] F. Schaub, B. K¨onings, and M. Weber. Context-adaptive privacy: Leveraging context awareness to support privacy decision making. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 14(1):34-43, 2015.

[59] Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. Opinion 8/2014 on the Recent Developments on the Internet of Things. WP 223, Sept. 2014.

[60] B. Anderson, A. Vance, B. Kirwan, E. D., and S. Howard. Users aren't (necessarily) lazy: Using NeuroIS to explain habituation to security warnings. In Proc. ICIS '14, 2014.

[61] B. Anderson, B. Kirwan, D. Eargle, S. Howard, and A. Vance. How polymorphic warnings reduce habituation in the brain - insights from an fMRI study. In Proc. CHI '15. ACM, 2015.

[62] M. S. Wogalter, V. C. Conzola, and T. L. Smith-Jackson. Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 16 USENIX Association 2015 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security 17 33(3):219-230, 2002.

[63] L. F. Cranor, P. Guduru, and M. Arjula. User interfaces for privacy agents. ACM TOCHI, 13(2):135-178, 2006.

[64] R. S. Portnoff, L. N. Lee, S. Egelman, P. Mishra, D. Leung, and D. Wagner. Somebody's watching me? assessing the effectiveness of webcam indicator lights. In Proc. CHI '15, 2015

[65] M. Langheinrich. Privacy by design - principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. In Proc. UbiComp '01. Springer, 2001

[66] Microsoft. Privacy Guidelines for Developing Software Products and Services. Technical Report version 3.1, 2008.

[67] The Impact of Timing on the Salience of Smartphone App Privacy Notices, Rebecca Balebako , Florian Schaub, Idris Adjerid , Alessandro Acquist ,Lorrie Faith Cranor

[68] R. Böhme and J. Grossklags. The Security Cost of Cheap User Interaction. In Workshop on New Security Paradigms, pages 67-82. ACM, 2011

[69] A. Felt, S. Egelman, M. Finifter, D. Akhawe, and D. Wagner. How to Ask For Permission. HOTSEC 2012, 2012.

[70] A. Felt, S. Egelman, M. Finifter, D. Akhawe, and D. Wagner. How to Ask For Permission. HOTSEC 2012, 2012.

[71] Towards Context Adaptive Privacy Decisions in Ubiquitous Computing Florian Schaub∗ , Bastian Könings∗ , Michael Weber∗ , Frank Kargl† ∗ Institute of Media Informatics, Ulm University, Germany Email: { florian.schaub | bastian.koenings | michael.weber }@uni-ulm.d

[72] M. Korzaan and N. Brooks, "Demystifying Personality and Privacy: An Empirical Investigation into Antecedents of Concerns for Information Privacy," Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, pp. 1-17, 2009.

[73] B. Könings and F. Schaub, "Territorial Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing," in WONS'11. IEEE, 2011, pp. 104-108.

[74] The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor

[75] 5 Federal Trade Commission, "Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade: A Report by the Staff of the Federal Trade Commission," March 2008, 11, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P064101tech.pdf.

[76] The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor

I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue http://www.is-journal.org/

[77] IS YOUR INSEAM YOUR BIOMETRIC? Evaluating the Understandability of Mobile Privacy Notice Categories Rebecca Balebako, Richard Shay, and Lorrie Faith Cranor July 17, 2013 https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/files/pdfs/tech_reports/CMUCyLab13011.pdf

[78] https://www.sba.gov/blogs/7-considerations-crafting-online-privacy-policy

[79] https://www.cippguide.org

[80] The Platform for Privacy Preferences Project, more commonly known as P3P was designed by the World Wide Web Consortium aka W3C in response to the increased use of the Internet for sales transactions and subsequent collection of personal information. P3P is a special protocol that allows a website's policies to be machine readable, granting web users' greater control over the use and disclosure of their information while browsing the internet.

[81] Security and Permissions, ANDROID DEVELOPERS, http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/security/security.html (last updated Sept. 13, 2011).

[82] See Foursqaure Privacy Policy

[83] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=iplj

[84] Privacy Policy, FOURSQUARE, http://foursquare.com/legal/privacy (last updated Jan. 12, 2011)

[85] Bees and Pollen, "Bees and Pollen Personalization Platform," http://www.beesandpollen.com/TheProduct. aspx; Bees and Pollen, "Sense6-Social Casino Games Personalization Solution," http://www.beesandpollen. com/sense6.aspx; Bees and Pollen, "About Us," http://www.beesandpollen.com/About.aspx.

[86] CFA on the NTIA Short Form Notice Code of Conduct to Promote Transparency in Mobile Applications July 26, 2013 | Press Release

[87] P. M. Schwartz and D. Solove. Notice & Choice. In The Second NPLAN/BMSG Meeting on Digital Media and Marketing to Children, 2009.

[88] F. Cate. The Limits of Notice and Choice. IEEE Security Privacy, 8(2):59-62, Mar. 2010.

[89] https://www.cippguide.org/2011/08/09/components-of-a-privacy-policy/

[90] https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2001/07/case-standardization-privacy-policy-formats

[91] Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change. Preliminary FTC Staff Report.December 2010

[92] . See Comment of Common Sense Media, cmt. #00457, at 1.

[93] Pollach, I. What's wrong with online privacy policies? Communications of the ACM 30, 5 (September 2007), 103-108

[94] A Comparative Study of Online Privacy Policies and Formats Aleecia M. McDonald,1 Robert W. Reeder,2 Patrick Gage Kelley, 1 Lorrie Faith Cranor1 1 Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA 2 Microsoft, Redmond, WA

http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/authors-version-PETS-formats.pdf

[95] Amber Sinha Critique

[96] Kent Walker, The Costs of Privacy, 2001 available at https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-84436409/the-costs-of-privacy

[97] Annie I. Anton et al., Financial Privacy Policies and the Need for Standardization, 2004 available at https://ssl.lu.usi.ch/entityws/Allegati/pdf_pub1430.pdf; Florian Schaub, R. Balebako et al, "A Design Space for effective privacy notices" available at https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/soups15-paper-schaub.pdf

[98] Allen Levy and Manoj Hastak, Consumer Comprehension of Financial Privacy Notices, Interagency Notice Project, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-09-07/s70907-21-levy.pdf

[99] Patrick Gage Kelly et al., Standardizing Privacy Notices: An Online Study of the Nutrition Label Approach available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/privacy-roundtables-comment-project-no.p095416-544506-00037/544506-00037.pdf

[100] The Center for Information Policy Leadership, Hunton & Williams LLP, "Ten Steps To Develop A Multi-Layered Privacy Notice" available at https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Centre/Ten_Steps_whitepaper.pdf

[101] A Comparative Study of Online Privacy Policies and Formats Aleecia M. McDonald,1 Robert W. Reeder,2 Patrick Gage Kelley, 1 Lorrie Faith Cranor1 1 Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA 2 Microsoft, Redmond, WA

[102] Howard Latin, "Good" Warnings, Bad Products, and Cognitive Limitations, 41 UCLA Law Review available at https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=41+UCLA+L.+Rev.+1193&key=1c15e064a97759f3f03fb51db62a79a5

[103] Report by Kleimann Communication Group for the FTC. Evolution of a prototype financial privacy notice, 2006. http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/ privacyinitiatives/ftcfinalreport060228.pdf Accessed 2 Mar 2007

http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/authors-version-PETS-formats.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/enlarging-the-small-print

English and Telugu Wikipedia edit-a-thon in Hyderabad

Pavan Santosh — 2015-12-31T07:49:19Z

After a long time, a collaborative Telugu and English Wikipedia edit-a-thon is being organised in Hyderabad on December 20.

This Sunday, the Telugu and English language Wikipedia editors are organising a unique edit-a-thon at Golden Threshold, Abids. The event is aimed at translating many English Wikipedia articles related to Telugu language and culture to Telugu and vice versa. Theatre scholar and Telugu Wikimedian Pranay Raj Vangari and English Wikimedian Srikar Kasyap are organising this event with support from Centre for Internet and Society. Telugu speakers who contribute to English Wikipedia are going to contribute to Telugu Wikipedia. “The event is scheduled at 10 am and over a dozen articles are planned to be created during the sprint”, explains Vangari. Kashyap adds saying, “the Wikimedians are also planning to share best practices of the two communities which will benefit everyone”. The event is open to all and newbies will be oriented with the basics of Wikipedia editing and enriching the knowledge pool in Telugu and other languages on the Internet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/english-and-telugu-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-in-hyderabad

Engaging on the Digital Commons

pranesh — 2011-08-20T12:56:26Z

We at the Centre for Internet and Society are very glad to be able to participate in the 13th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC). Our interest in the conference arises mainly from our work in the areas of intellectual property rights reform and promotion of different forms of ‘opennesses’ that have cropped up as a response to perceived problems with our present-day regime of intellectual property rights, including open content, open standards, free and open source software, open government data, open access to scholarly research and data, open access to law, etc., our emerging work on telecom policy with respect to open/shared spectrum, and the very important questions around Internet governance. The article by Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash was published in the journal Common Voices, Issue 4.

Our work on intellectual property reform are proactive measures at effecting policy change that go towards protecting and preserving an intellectual, intangible commons. We have opposed the Protection and Utilization of the Public-funded Intellectual Property Bill (an Indian version of the American Bayh-Dole Act) which sought to privatise the fruits of publicfunded research by mandating patents on them. We are working towards reform of copyright law which we believe is lopsided in its lack of concern for consumers and that its current march towards greater enclosure of the public domain is unsustainable. Believing that not all areas of industry and technology are equal, and that patent protection is ill-suited for the software industry, we have worked to ensure that the current prohibitions against patenting of software are effectively followed.

Defensively—that is working within the existing framework of intellectual property law—we seek to promote the various forms of copyright and patent licensing that have arisen as reactions to restrictive IP laws. Free/open source software and open content have arisen as a reaction to the restrictive nature of copyright law, such as the presumption under copyright law that a work is copyrighted by the mere fact of it coming into existence. (for instance, this was not so in the United States until 1989, till when a copyright notice was required to assert copyright). While earlier the presumption was that a work was to belong to the public domain, after the Berne Convention, that presumption was reversed. This led to the creation of the idea of special licences, by using which one could allow all others to share his/her work and reuse it. This innovation in using the law to promote, rather than restrict, what others could do with one’s works has enabled the creation and sharing of everything from Wikipedia, to Linux (which powers more than 85 percent of the world’s top 500 supercomputers) and Apache HTTP server (more than 60 percent of all websites). The advent of the Internet has allowed the creation of intangible digital commons.

We are also starting to engage with the question of telecom policy around spectrum allocation, and believe that promotion of a shared spectrum would help make telecom services, including broadband Internet, available to people at reasonable prices. We also believe that Internet governance should not be the prerogative of governments, and should not happen in a top-down fashion.

Comparisons between tangible commons and intangible commons have been made by people like Elinor and Vincent Ostrom, who in 1977 contributed to our understanding of subtractability and public goods. James Boyle has written about the expansion of copyright law as “the second enclosure movement”, following in the footsteps of the first enclosure movement against the take-over of common land which stretched from the fifteenth century till the nineteenth. Yochai Benkler, has written extensively on commons in information and communication systems as well as on spectrum commons. Just as Elinor Ostrom’s work shows how Garrett Hardin’s evocative ‘tragedy of the commons’ and the problems of free-riding are very often avoided in practice, Michael Heller’s equally evocative phrase ‘gridlock economy’ shows that ‘over-propertisation’ of knowledge can lead to a ‘tragedy of the anti-commons’.

Through this conference we wish to learn of the lessons that academic writings on tangible commons have to impart to intangible commons which are configured very differently (in terms of subtractability, for instance). Ostrom’s work shows how individuals can, in a variety of settings, work to find institutional solutions that promote social cooperation and human betterment. As part of her nine design principles of stable local common pool resource management, she lists clearly defined boundaries for effective exclusion of external unentitled parties. How does that work, when even the existing mechanisms of boundary-definition in intellectual property, such as patent claims, are often decried as being ambiguous thanks to the legalese they are written in? What of traditional knowledge for which defining the community holding ownership rights becomes very difficult? As Ostrom and Hess note, “the rules and flow patterns are different with digital information”, but how do these differences affect the lessons learned from CPR studies? How do Ostrom’s pronouncements against uniform top-down approaches to resource management affect the way that copyright and patents seek to establish a uniform system across multiple areas of art, science and industry (musical recordings and paintings, pharmaceuticals and software)? And how can Ostrom’s work on management of natural resources inform us about the management of resources such as spectrum or the Internet itself? These are all very interesting and important questions that need to be explored, and we are glad that this conference will help us understand these issues better.

Please read the article in Common Voices Issue 4 here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/digital-commons

Encryption policy would have affected emails, operating systems, WiFi

praskrishna — 2015-09-25T01:23:10Z

Our email data would have to be stored. If we connect to a WiFi, that data would have to be stored, and that's plain ridiculous. There is a problem when the government tries to target citizens to ensure national security, said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

The article by Amrita Madhukalya was published in DNA on September 23, 2015.

The Draft National Policy on Encryption, withdrawn by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeiTY) after it created a furore on privacy issues, would have had allowed the government access to any form of digital data that required encryption. Not limited to just WhatsApp or Viber data, it would have affected email services, WiFi, phone operating systems, etc.

"Our email data would have to be stored. If we connect to a WiFi, that data would have to be stored, and that's plain ridiculous. There is a problem when the government tries to target citizens to ensure national security," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

The government, criticised heavily for the policy, withdrew it on Tuesday afternoon. It said that a new policy will be brought in its place.

Nikhil Pahwa of internet watchdog Medianama said that data about normal day-to-day activities would have to be stored if the policy was implemented. "The policy would have affected everyday business to consumer data.
This would mean that if a doctor or lawyer had your data digitised, they will be open to access, and would have to be kept for at least 90 days," said Pahwa.

However, he added that a robust encryption is needed. "It is believed that companies like Google, Facebook allow the NSA to access user data in the US, putting our personal security, and the national security largely, at risk," said Pahwa.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dna-september-23-2015-amrita-madhukalya-encryption-policy-would-have-affected-emails-operating-systems-wifi

Enabling Access to Education through ICT - Conference Report

praskrishna — 2013-01-28T10:14:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore in cooperation G3ict, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, The Deafway Foundation, DEF and SPACE with the gracious support of The Hans Foundation and the Department of Information Technology, MICT, New Delhi organized an international conference "Enabling Access to Education through ICT" in New Delhi from 27 to 29 October 2010. The event was sponsored by Hans Foundation.

Background

Persons with disabilities in India are often left out of mainstream schools and universities due to a variety of reasons, primarily the lack of awareness amongst educational organizations and teachers, near absence of infrastructural resources and lack of training in this regard. It is believed that barely two per cent of the 70 million disabled persons have access to education in India. Unless we take special efforts to remedy this situation by equipping teachers, educational institutions and the entire social infrastructure to adopt innovative, cost effective and technology based resources such as assistive technologies, ubiquitous Web, multiple platforms, social networks, online libraries and digital resources etc, they will continue to remain excluded from social participation.

Conference


Given above is a picture of the speakers from the Edict 2010 event in Delhi.

Edict 2010 was organised by the Centre for Internet and Society, in collaboration with G3ict, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, The Deafway Foundation, DEF and SPACE with the gracious support of The Hans Foundation and the Department of Information Technology, MICT, New Delhi. The main aim was to highlight existing policy and practical barriers for students and educational institutions in developing countries, showcase ICT based solutions which are presently being adopted around the world and point to existing knowledge resources and emerging trends in education. The conference focused on enabling education at all levels: primary, secondary, tertiary and distance education and vocational training. The success of the conference was characterised by the fact that it brought together a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, special and mainstream educators, disability organisations, policymakers from the ministries of education (MHRD) and information technology (DIT), Technology developers and researchers, librarians and persons with disabilities, from several countries like India, USA, Switzerland, Japan, Nepal and Bangladesh, who were all experts with vast experience. Consequently, the sessions were extremely interactive, with a lot of inputs from the participants and it was commonly acknowledged that the sharing of information and learning was equal for both participants and speakers. The break out sessions resulted in a lot of recommendations and insightful observations from the four groups.

The conference was inaugurated by Smt. Vibha Puri Das, Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Other special guests were Dr.Indrajit Banerjee, Director, Information and Communications sector, UNESCO and Mr. Andrew Tru from WIPO. Smt. Das released the first copy of the book, ‘E-Accessibility Handbook for Persons with Disabilities’, a book based on the G3ict-ITU on line e-Accessibility Toolkit for Policy makers, which was edited and published by CIS. Dr. Banerjee received the first copy. Smt. Das delivered the key note address; she outlined the situation with respect to education of persons with disabilities in India and highlighted some of the initiatives of the Ministry of Human Resource and Development. She especially drew attention to the NMEICT project of the MHRD, which is a huge fund for supporting initiatives which used ICT to promote Education through ICT. Till now, NMEICT has funded one disability related project for conversion of college level textbooks into daisy format in four languages. The project is being undertaken by IIT Calcutta. She concluded by inviting all persons and organisations present in the conference to apply to the fund for specific projects and said that the ministry would be happy to look at proposals for promoting education for persons with disabilities.

The key note address was followed by remarks from Dr. Banerjee, who gave an outline of UNESCO’s initiatives around the world on education and underscored the importance of attaining the Millennium Development Goal of Education for all for all developing countries and UNESCO’s commitment to support countries in their efforts to do so. Mr.Andrew Tru talked about WIPO’s commitment towards securing access to reading materials for persons with print disabilities in accessible formats around the world and focused on the deliberations on a treaty for the print impaired at WIPO, with special emphasis on the Stakeholders’ Platform initiative of WIPO.

The conference started off with welcome note from the organisers CIS, G3ict, UNESCO, ITU and WIPO. Smt. Vibha Puri Das, Secretary, Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource and Development gave the key note address and released the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities, brought out by CIS in collaboration with G3ict and ITU and sponsored by Hans Foundation. The handbook will help regulators around the world in their policy making. Dr. Indrajit Banerjee, Director, UNESCO gave the introductory remarks. This followed by a presentation of Axel Leblois, Executive Director G3ict, on the dispositions of the UNCRPD relating to digital accessibility.

Over the three days, there were presentations from 29 experts on a variety of topics, ranging from discussing challenges and solutions in educational institutions, to technology development and policy formulation and implementation. The profiles of the speakers are given in Annexure A. The conference was attended by 77 participants and was also attended by a large number of participants from other conferences taking place in the hotel from time to time. The list of the 77 participants is given as Annexure B.

Conclusion

The conference was highly engaging and enabled the attendees to explore the challenges and opportunities and equipped them with the tools needed to implement ICT solutions within their organizations. There was a very high level of expertise amongst educators in the conference which was apparent from the discussions, there were persons who talked about education for the blind, deaf, persons with mental disabilities etc with great authority and put forward insightful perspectives. From a technology standpoint, there was a notion that broadband which was at present not easily available was about to explode because of the huge investment that the government was putting into it and hence it was possible that all the solutions which were being discussed in the conference would be more easily available to persons with disabilities uniformly around the country. There are many opportunities to leapfrog in India. In fact, many speakers considered cloud based technologies being adopted in school systems where there was broadband infrastructure available. There was a common consensus amongst all members present in the conference that universal accessibility could only be achieved with the involvement of all stakeholders; public-private partnership is key to ensuring that all private services and technology solutions are also accessible to persons with disabilities. Participants were very impressed with the innovative teaching methods and technologies in other countries, especially in Japan.


Above is a group photo of the participants at the Edict Conference

General Recommendations

Calls for proposals for funding projects should be widely publicized: It was a common feeling of all the participants that even though there were several funds which could be tapped into for projects, there was little information about where these funds existed, how they could be applied for and used to fund different kinds of projects. Government should make some effort to ensure that information about funding opportunities should reach intended beneficiaries.
Accessibility should be integrated into existing education projects: While it is important to initiate specific accessibility related projects, it is equally necessary to integrate accessibility into existing projects such as introducing creation and distribution of accessible content in existing ICT school programmes.
Focus to be given to training students with disabilities: all the groups felt that training was a huge issue and that support for students through training was required. SSA Karnataka gave a good presentation showing how it addressed the issue of training on a large scale. The groups highlighted that the UNCRPD placed an obligation on the government to raise awareness amongst persons with disabilities.
Priority attention should be given to the development of language based tools for all Indian languages, especially minority languages. This includes development of optical character recognition (OCR) and text to speech (TTS) software in different languages. This is critical for all levels and forms of education.
Access to broadband services for persons with disabilities at affordable prices to be promoted to enable effective use of technology to access educational content.
Need to create accessible content and accessible open resources: It was stressed that all study modules used by educators, and open educational resources must be in accessible formats in order to have the widest outreach to students. Cyndi Rowland gave an example where Federal grants would not go to programmes which created non accessible content.
Public procurement should be used to promote accessibility.
Government should focus on early intervention in education because very few disabled children actually enrolled in schools and even amongst those that enrol, a very miniscule percentage go on to complete secondary and higher education.
Need to have a well developed ecosystem: All schools must be equipped with resources to teach disabled children.
Solutions and teaching methods must be innovative and highly individualised. Common approaches to teaching disabled children are less likely to be successful.
Periodic and on going trainings must be given to field practitioners with special emphasis on sharing information about solutions which have been successful or failed in the past.

Specific Recommendations

Training colleges for educators should include a course on disabilities and education for students with disabilities.
Children with disabilities in CBSE, ICSE and all state boards should get at least three years to complete class 10th and 12th examinations.
Children with disabilities should be allowed to give examinations with computers and in formats of their choice.
Each child with a disability should get compulsory training in the use of computers using appropriate assistive technology and be provided these technologies free of cost or at subsidised rates.
The government should launch a mandatory ICT training programme for all teachers in rural and urban areas to train them in the use of assistive technologies.
Course materials for all classes should be provided in CDs and accessible formats in all schools for children with disabilities.
NMEICT should fund development of text to speech software in all Indian languages so that the vast majority of Indian children who cannot read or understand English can continue to study in their native language; it is strongly recommended that such development projects also be entrusted to companies and organisations directly who have expertise in this area and should not be conditional on working with an IIT, IISC or other similar institution. The NMEICT should also fund other projects for the disabled, such as for content creation and so on.
It is recommended that the Digital Library project, which is a praiseworthy and extremely important project for creating open resources to all existing regional and English books should be made accessible since it has the potential to benefit a very large number of persons with disabilities. At the moment, the project involves all the steps which are required to create accessible books, i.e., scanning and OCRing, however, despite the fact that OCR is done, the books are still uploaded as image files and not as accessible word or text or html files which can be read using screen readers. If this was done and we had access to TTS in Indian languages, we would have access to all the traditional Indian literature and manuscripts, which are invaluable to a researcher.
It is strongly recommended that the web sites of all educational institutions, both public and private should be made accessible so that persons using screen readers can access information about the courses, admissions, read about the organisations and apply on line for admissions. It is also recommended that persons with disabilities should be given the flexibility to take on line examinations and that these should be designed in an accessible manner.
It is recommended that all educational institutions and libraries should be made physically accessible for persons using wheelchairs.

What our Speakers and Partners Had to Say

"G3ict was most pleased to organize this very effective workshop with CIS: all stakeholders required to implement the dispositions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in matters of accessible and assistive technologies in Education actively participated. Disabled Persons Organizations, governments, industry, schools, universities administrators and educators engaged in a very dynamic and practical exchange of experience which created a great learning opportunity for all participants. It also demonstrated that solutions, funding and expertise can be leveraged in India to leapfrog current implementation methods for accessible and assistive technologies. Many participants look forward to build on the momentum of the workshop to develop an ongoing national forum on accessible and assistive ICTs in education. It was clear from the discussions held with government officials that private-public cooperation including industry, education institutions and government agencies are likely to emerge as a result of this dialogue. A most inspiring workshop, among the most successful that G3ict has been involved with in terms of engaging key ICT accessibility stakeholders at a national level."

Axel Leblois

"There is an urgent need to teach disability studies in India across all levels of school and university. Ignorance and discrimination are so high that even the media does not attempt to mask its poor and misinformed portrayal of disabled people. This conference has started a welcome conversation in that direction."

Joyojit

"This meeting brought together an amazing array of individuals that included those with disabilities, those in education, those in Ministry positions, and experts from India and abroad. The energy was palpable and the work that began at this meeting will be felt throughout India for years to come. It is clear that this will be the first of many transformative meetings sponsored by CIS."

For the presentations, click here

Download the agenda and bios here [Word, 609 kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/edict-report

Enabling Access to Education through ICT

praskrishna — 2011-08-31T10:41:15Z

ICT workshop in Delhi...starts from Wednesday, 27 October 2010...ends on Friday, 29 October 2010.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore in cooperation with the Global Initiative for Inclusive ICT (G3ICT), a flagship advocacy organization of the UN Global Alliance on ICT and Development (UN-GAID), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), UNESCO, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment and the Deafway Foundation is organizing an international conference, Enabling Access to Education through ICT in New Delhi from 27 to 29 October 2010. The event is sponsored by Hans Foundation.

Agenda

EDICT2010: Enabling Access to Education through ICT

How can accessible information and communication and assistive technologies for persons with disabilities be best deployed in schools and universities?

October 27-29, 2010

India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India

Co-organized by:

Event Sponsor:

Media Partners

Enabling Access to Education through ICTs: How Can Accessible Information and Communication and Assistive Technologies for Persons with Disabilities be Best Deployed in Schools and Universities?

An international inquiry organized by the Centre for Internet and Society in cooperation with G3ict, an advocacy initiative of the United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development with the support of UNESCO, the International Telecommunication Union, the DAISY Consortium and the World Intellectual Property Organization

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

08.30 – 09.30 Registration opens

09.30 – 11.00 Opening session

Welcome note from the organizers, CIS, G3ict, UNESCO, ITU and WIPO

Key note address by Smt Vibha Puri Das, Secretary, Higher Education, Ministry for Human Resource and Development

Introductory remarks by Dr.Indrajit Banerjee, Director, UNESCO

– 11.15 Tea break

11.15 – 13.00 Axel Leblois, Executive Director, G3ict: ICT Accessibility and Reasonable Accommodation in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Implications of Article 9 and 24 for State Parties and Education Ministries

Why Accessible and Assistive Technologies Matter? – An Overview of ICT Barriers to Access and Solutions

Live examples and case studies of ICT accessibility issues and solutions in education. The topics – (access to websites), (published works and libraries),(classroom materials and tests), (hardware and software) and (K to 12 and university perspectives)

Speakers

Cyndi Rowland, Associate Director, Center for Persons with Disabilities: Visible and Hidden Barriers for Students and Faculty

Dr. Sushmita Mitra, Director, Student Support Services, National Institute of Open Schooling: School Textbooks and Educational Resources – Making Distance Education Work

Dr.Hemalata, Deputy Director, NCDS, IGNOU: Information Communication Technology (ICT) for Inclusion
Mr.S.C.Kunthiya, Joint Secretary Elementary Education, Ministry of HRD: Barriers and Initiatives of the HRD Ministry

James Thurston, Senior Strategist for Global Policy and Standards, Microsoft: Accessibility Guide for Educators

Q & A discussion
Moderator- Ambassador Swashpawan Singh

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch break

14.00 – 15.30 Beyond Accessibility: Implementing Assistive Technologies for Students with Disabilities

Live examples and demos. Topics - (input / output devices), (screen readers), (text to speech and voice recognition), (language support) and)

The need for individual solutions and
Training and support essentials

Speakers

Srinivasu Chakravartula, Accessibility Manager, Yahoo India: World of Assistive Technologies

Prof S R Mittal, Professor in Education, Department of Education, University of Delhi: Challenges faced by Students with Disabilities in Higher Education

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society: Open Educational Resources
Arun Rao, CEO, The Deaf Way Foundation: ICT Applications in Deaf Education

Prof Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Coordinator, Equal Opportunities Cell, Delhi University: Education of Students with Disabilities: An Evaluation of the Indian Educational Policies

Moderator: Mrs. Mala Ramadurai

15.30 – 16.00 Tea break

16.00 – 17.30 Shifting Paradigms for Accessible and Assistive Solutions: Can India Schools Leapfrog Current Solutions?

Speakers

Prabir Purkayastha, President, Centre for Technology and Development, Chairperson of Knowledge Commons, Vice President, Delhi Science Forum and Chairperson of Program Review Committee on Perception and Control, ASTeC Programme, Ministry of Information Technology
Mandar Naik, Director - Platform Strategy with Microsoft India: Open Source Software and Proprietary Software, The Need for Interoperability

Susan Schorr, Regulatory Officer of the Regulatory and Market Environment Division of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, ITU: Connecting Schools: Global Challenges and Solutions

Claudio Giugliemma, President, Dominic Foundation (Switzerland): Accessible e-learning

Professor Kenryu Nakamura, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology
University of Tokyo: 99 Tips in My Pocket In-Class Use of Mobile Phones for Students with Disabilities

Moderator: Noopur Jhunjhunwala

17.30 Adjournment, Announcements for Next Day Program

Thursday, October 28, 2010

09.30 – 11.00 Morning Session – UNESCO-CIS Case Studies Overview Education in ICTs Initiatives in the Asia Pacific Region: Success Stories

Speakers

Nirmita Narasimhan, Programme Manager, Centre for Internet and Society: Presentation on UNESCO case study

James Mathew- Insite, Project Coordinator of Insight: Insight ICT for the Differently abled

Professor Mamoru Iwabuchi, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology University of Tokyo: Development of ICT based Assistive Technology for Minority Languages

Sachin Malhan, CEO and Co-founder, Inclusive Planet: The Global Social Library for the Visually Impaired

Moderator: Dr.Indrajit Banerjee

11.00 – 11.20 Tea break

11.20 – 13.00 Plenary Session with DAISY Speakers - The New Frontier for Access to Published Works: Success Stories and Roadblocks

Speakers

Hiroshi Kawamura, President, DAISY Consortium: Daisy Consortium Presentation
Viji Dilip, International Program Manager, Bookshare: The Bookshare Success Story

Mr.Andrew Tu, Senior Advisor to Assistant Director General of WIPO: Facilitating Access to Copyright Works for Visually Impaired Persons – The WPO VIP Initiative

Mr. Vivek, Mehra, MD and CEO Sage publications
Dr. Sam Taraporevala, Associate Professor and Head of Department of Sociology, St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai: India’s situation

Discussion and Q & As

Moderator: TBC

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch break

14.00 – 15.30 DAISY Best Practices for Educators

Speakers

George Kerscher, Secretary General of the DAISY Consortium and President of the International Digital Publishing Forum: Latest Technical Developments and Sample Implementations such as in DAISY Mathematics

Prashant Ranjan Verma, Consultant, DAISY Consortium: Over view of Hardware and Software Tools for Authoring and Playback of DAISY Books

Birendra Raj Pokharel, President, National Federation of the Disabled-Nepal, Convener, DAISY Nepal Foundation, Vice Chair, DPI Asia Pacific and Chair, DPI South Asia: Sharing of Experiences on Implementation of DAISY Book Production and Distribution in Developing Countries

Michael Katzmann, Chief of the Materials Development Division, National Library Services for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, USA: Best Practices in Providing Accessible Materials to Persons with Disabilities

Moderator: George Abraham, CEO, Score Foundation

15.30 – 16.00 Tea break

16.00 – 17.30 Break-out Sessions:
Group 1: Primary education

Group 2: Secondary education
Group 3: Tertiary education
Group 4: Vocational and lifelong learning

Each group covers

Covers 2 to 3 case studies presented by field practitioners with Q&As
Discuss key challenges and success factors as described by field practitioners

Agreed on key policy recommendations to be presented in plenary session

Facilitator: Sunil Abraham

Moderators and rapporteurs to be identified for each group

17.30 Adjournment

19.30 Conference Dinne at Gymkhana Club being coorganised by Daisy Forum of India, Bookshare and CIS

Friday, October 29, 2010

09.30 – 11.00 Developing an ICT Accessibility and Assistive Technology Support Eco-system for Educators

The topics – (centers of excellence and peer support), (training the trainers), (employing disabled persons as trainers), (resources for field practitioners), (role of universities), (standards), (public procurement), (international examples), (discussion with selected case studies leaders and participants and India’s Ministry of Education officials)

Speakers

Cyndi Rowland, Associate Director, Center for Persons with Disabilities: Impact of Lack of Accessible ICTs for Students with Disabilities – An International Perspective

Arun Mehta, President, Bidirectional Access Promotion Society: Opportunities and Challenges for Education in a Neuro-Diverse World
Joyojeet Pal, Visiting Assistant Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University and a Computing Innovation fellow at University of Colorado Boulder: Developing a curriculum in Disability Studies and Assistive Technology for higher education
Shanti Raghavan, Founder and Managing Trustee, Enable India: Centres of Excellence, Train the Trainers, Employing Disabled Persons as Trainers

Moderator: Geet Oberoy

11.00 - 11.20 Tea break
11.20 – 13.00 Wrap-up session presentation of group work, feedback and action points. On site web based survey of participants on policy priorities. Will be used to edit white paper.

Facilitator: Axel Leblois

13.00 – 14.00 Closing lunch

14.00 – 15.30 Afternoon Organizer’s Private Session

Summarizing key findings
Looking at on-line survey results
Drafting key points of white paper
Drafting table of contents

Next steps

15.30 – 16.00 Tea break
16.00 Adjournment

Download the agenda

For details on the event in the digital LEARNING newsletter

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/education-through-ICT

Elements of a Decentralized Web

Admin — 2017-11-23T14:16:26Z

Gene Kogan will deliver a talk on the elements of a decentralized web at the Centre for Internet (CIS) office in Bengaluru on December 11, 5.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The internet is broken. Straying far from the original vision of democratizing access to knowledge, large tech companies now resemble the industrial barons of the 19th century, presiding over what many scholars regard as a public utility but nevertheless unregulated. As machine learning has entered the picture, the usual suspects like Facebook, Reddit, and Quora, have begun training sophisticated algorithms on personal data to route traffic in order to maximize attention, leading to a web which is more atomized, addictive, and anxiety-inducing.

In response to this, some have begun writing about, conceptualizing, and implementing the open-source protocols of what they consider the future web 3.0. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts have expanded their focus to more generalized blockchains which enable trust in decentralized platforms, while initiatives like IPDB and IPFS ambitiously promise to make hosting, storage, database querying, and even computation itself possible inside of peer-to-peer networks. But all is not well in this techno-utopia -- as the speculative bubble around this "internet of money" grows, so too does interest from the very institutions these new initiatives seek to overcome. The landscape is beginning to look like Silicon Valley of the 1990s and the threat of a crash looms. It's up to us to determine which way this one will play out.

Gene Kogan

Gene Kogan is an artist and a programmer who is interested in generative systems, computer science, and software for creativity and self-expression. He is a collaborator within numerous open-source software projects, and gives workshops and lectures on topics at the intersection of code and art. Gene initiated ml4a, a free book about machine learning for artists, activists, and citizen scientists, and regularly publishes video lectures, writings, and tutorials to facilitate a greater public understanding of the subject.

Links:

genekogan.com

twitter.com/genekogan

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/elements-of-a-decentralized-web-talk-by-gene-kogan

Election panel rejects Google’s proposal for electoral services tie-up

praskrishna — 2014-01-31T08:58:01Z

EC had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google but had not shared or handed over any data to the Internet giant so far.

The article by Anuja and Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on January 9, 2014. Lawrence Liang is quoted.

The Election Commission (EC) on Thursday rejected a proposal by Internet search engine operator Google Inc. to provide electoral information services to EC ahead of the general election due later this year. Google’s proposal, made earlier this week, was criticized by experts and political parties on the grounds of security.

Google, which deals with Internet-related services and products, had made a presentation at EC where it proposed to deliver voter facilitation services through a tie-up with the Commission.

“Google made a presentation to the Commission for electoral hook up services for citizens to help in efforts of the Commission for better electoral information services. However, after due consideration, the Commission has decided not to pursue the proposal any further,” EC said in a statement.

Its decision came at a meeting of senior EC officials on Thursday, called to discuss the proposal. Security was one of the main issues before it.

“Security and controlling the data were the main points which were considered. By ways of such a tie-up all the data would have been up for access. It was always a question of whether Indian laws would apply to it or not, so we decided against it,” a senior official from EC said.

PTI reported that the meeting was attended by the chief election commissioner V.S. Sampath and election commissioners H.S. Brahma and S. N. A. Zaidi.

The Times of India in a report on Sunday said there were concerns over the EC move to tie up with Google for voter registration.

EC had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google but it had not shared any data with it. The move was criticised by the ruling Congress party as well as the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. The legal cell of the Congress had written to EC raising concerns over national security and asking whether the tie-up would affect the electoral process. The BJP’s complaint was that stakeholders, including political parties, should have been consulted.

Experts say that in the event of such a tie-up, concerns about protection of privacy would have outweighed national security fears.

“The concern is not so much about national security as it is about privacy issues. This kind of database is too important and too powerful to be controlled by a private company. There have been too many instances of this kind of data being skewed and riots happening during the election process. Privately owned databases could lead to potential misuse of the data,” said Lawrence Liang, co-founder of Alternative Law Forum and chairman of the board at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

“It is not a question of how and what service Google could have provided for elections, but how the state can bring itself to provide that kind of service,” he said.

In the US, when George W. Bush was re-elected president in 2004, the company that manufactured the voting machines was accused of rigging the polls, Liang added.

Google called the EC’s rejection “unfortunate”, pointing out that the company has already helped governments with such services in countries like the Philippines, Egypt, Mexico and Kenya.

“It is unfortunate that our discussions with the Election Commission of India to change the way users access their electoral information, that is publicly available, through an online voter look up tool, were not fruitful,” Google said in a statement.

“Google will continue to develop tools and resources to make civic information universally accessible and useful, help drive more informed citizen participation, and open up new avenues for engagement for politicians, citizens, and civic leaders,” it added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-january-31-2014-anuja-moulishree-srivastava-election-panel-rejects-google-proposal-for-electoral-services-tie-up

Eight Challenges That Indian-Language Wikipedias Need to Overcome

subha — 2016-03-29T17:05:36Z

Even after a decade of existence, Indian language Wikipedias are not yet known to many Indian language speakers. Wikipedia, being the largest available encyclopedia made in the human history, it what it is today because of the hundreds and thousands of volunteer-editors. But while native-language Wikipedias are becoming game-changers in other corners of the world, the scenario in India is skewed. In my experience, here are a number of challenges that Indian-language Wikipedias are currently facing.

The article was published in the Wire on March 17, 2016. A version of the article was also mirrored by Opensource.com on March 28, 2016.

1. Language communities:

The language communities of many of the Indian languages are such that many of them do not know how to search for information online, in their language typed in their script. Some of these communities even believe that because Google’s home page does not have their script, their language does not exist on the Internet. Starting with five Indian languages as the language of its interface, Google now has has nine Indian languages. But this does not stop a Santali or Manipuri user to search in Unicode Ol chiki (script for Santali) or in Unicode Meithei (script for Manipuri). Google or any search engine for that matter will display anything available in any script on the Internet. But the lack of this very thing is keeping many people away from being connected to the Internet in general and Wikipedia in particular.\

2. Wikipedia’s editor community:

Wikipedia is written by people like you and me. And from writing to editing everything happens voluntarily. As many people do not probably know, or do not try to learn, anybody can correct the mistakes and inaccuracies that exist in many Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia editor communities for several Indian languages are really small. While these languages are spoken by millions of people, only a handful editors contribute in editing the Wikipedia in these languages. In January this year, the Hindi Wikipedia, for instance, had only 89 editors while the total number of Hindi speakers would be over 550 million.

3. Language input in computers:

A vast majority of people in this country do not know how to type in their own language.. There is also little documentation for users to learn about language input. Even though many government-run schools in India are seeing a proliferation of more computers and Internet access, native language input and several other essential training of basic computing are not widely taught in schools in all states. What is sad is that there is a wide variety of free software for native-language input and the challenges of typing in Indian languages that existed a few years back has almost gone.

4. Language input in mobile devices:

With over 1 billion people with mobile phones, the 15% internet penetration rate will soon grow at a faster pace. This in turn — and also tough competition that compel TSPs to drop data charges — will help many Indians get access to the Internet . If these people are not educated about native language input then they will be victims of the English-centric Internet rather than being able to enjoy the virtue of the same. Many Indians that have smartphones need full Indian language support and especially inbuilt input methods to be able to contribute in their own language Wikipedia.

5. Low availability of Indian-language content on the Internet:

Lack of native language content on the Internet is another major factor in the low adoption of Indian language Wikpedias. As per an Internet and Mobile Association of India survey conducted in 2012, over 6% of the population is left behind from joining the online sphere simply because of lack of content in their languages. Take, for instance, my state odisha.While the Kerala government’s official tourism portal is available in Odia and other Indian languages, the Odisha government’s tourism portal itself has no information in Odia-language today. Our languages are neglected largely in our own states.

6. Mismatch of conventional and new media:

Many conventional media houses still continue to use non-standard variants of the ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems, instead of adopting the Unicode standard. Unicode being a global standard, and having the advantage of unifying the world, has been available for Indian languages for almost 25 years now. But much of our vernacular print media has failed to adopt this. Consequently, many popular Indian-language newspapers are yet to become available in Unicode on the open Internet.

7. Lack of Open Access:

Majority of the information produced on the Internet in general and by the government, in particular, are mostly copyrighted. The paywalled garden of copyright restrictions keeps the information closed and stop people from sharing and learning more. On the contrary, Wikipedia is available under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license which allows anyone to make use of the content and even distribute commercial copies of its content. The idea of opening up information for masses in a free license could make information reach millions of people.

8. People with disabilities:

Many people cannot read, speak and write. India has over 60 million people with some form of hearing impairment. There is a desperate need for a high-quality text-to-speech and speech-to-text engine for people with physical disabilities. Also, these software products have to be free software so that common people, that cannot afford to buy expensive proprietary software like JAWS, can contribute to Wikipedia in their language. Many text-to-speech engines that are available today for Indian languages sound so mechanical that it is difficult for common speakers to use them.

Subhashish Panigrahi is an educator and free knowledge evangelist, and currently works for Communications, Program Capacity & Learning at Wikimedia Foundation, and Access to Knowledge at the Centre for Internet and Society. Portions of this article came from a speech that Panigrahi gave at BHASHA: Indian Languages Digital Festival in New Delhi.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-march-17-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-eight-challenges-that-indian-language-wikipedias-need-to-overcome

Eight Challenges Indian-Language Wikipedias Need to Overcome

subha — 2016-06-18T17:09:38Z

Even after a decade of existence, Indian language Wikipedias are not yet known to many Indian language speakers. Wikipedia, the largest available encyclopedia made in the human history, is what it is today because of the hundreds and thousands of volunteer editors.

The article was published in Global Voices on April 27, 2016. A version of this post was previously published on The Wire.

But while native-language Wikipedias are becoming game-changers in other corners of the world, the scenario in India is skewed. Here, from my point of view, are some of the challenges that Indian-language Wikipedias are currently facing.

1. Language communities

The language communities of many of the Indian languages are such that many of them do not know how to search for information online, in language typed in their script. Some of these communities even believe that because Google’s home page does not display their script, their language does not exist on the Internet. Google, which starting with five Indian languages as options in its interface, now has has nine Indian languages. But this does not stop a Santali or Manipuri user from searching in Unicode Ol chiki (the script for Santali) or in Unicode Meithei (the script for Manipuri). Google, or any search engine, for that matter, will display anything available in any script on the Internet. But the perceived lack of this very function is keeping many people from connecting to the Internet, and to Wikipedia in particular.

2. Wikipedia’s editor community

Wikipedia is written by people like you and me. And everything, from writing to editing, is done by volunteers. And anybody can correct the mistakes and inaccuracies that exist in many Wikipedia articles. While several Indian languages are spoken by millions of people, the Wikipedia editor communities for these languages are very small, with only a handful editors contributing to editing those language versions of Wikipedia. In January this year, Hindi Wikipedia, for instance, had only 89 editors, while the total number of Hindi speakers is over 550 million.

3. Language input on computers

A vast majority of people in India do not know how to type in their own language. There is also little documentation instructing users about language input. Even though many government-run schools in India are seeing a proliferation in computer use and Internet access, native language input and other essential training of basic computing are not widely taught in schools in all states. This is unfortunate, as there is a wide variety of free software for native-language input, and the challenges of typing in Indian languages that existed a few years back are now almost non-existent.

4. Language input on mobile devices

With over 1 billion mobile phone users, India's 15% internet penetration rate will soon start growing at a faster pace. This in turn—along with the tough competition that will compel TSPs to lower data charges—will help many Indians get access to the Internet. If these people are not educated about native language input they will be victims of the English-centric Internet and fail to enjoy the virtues of the former. Many Indians who have smartphones need full Indian language support, and especially built-in input methods, to be able to contribute to Wikipedia in their own languages.

5. Scarcity of Indian-language content on the Internet

The relative lack of native language content on the Internet is another major factor in the low adoption of Indian language Wikpedias. According to an Internet and Mobile Association of India survey conducted in 2012, over 6% of the population is left behind with regard to joining the online sphere simply because of a scarcity of content in their languages. Take my home state of Odisha, for instance: while the Kerala state government’s official tourism portal is available in Odia and other Indian languages, at the time of writing the Odisha government’s tourism portal had no information in Odia. It is unfortunate that our languages are neglected largely within our own states.

6. Incompatibility between new and traditional media standards

Instead of adopting the Unicode standard, many traditional media outlets continue to use non-standard variants of the ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems Unicode, a global standard, has been available for Indian languages for almost 25 years now, but most of India's vernacular print media has failed to adopt it. As a result, many popular Indian-language newspapers are unavailable in Unicode on the open Internet.

7. Lack of Open Access

The majority of the information published on the Internet, and by the Indian government, in particular, is copyrighted. This paywalled garden of copyright restrictions restricts access of this information and prevents people from sharing and learning more. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is distributed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license that allows anyone to make use of the content, and even distribute it commercially. Opening up information for the masses under free license regime could make it easily accessible to millions of people.

8. Failure to cater for people with disabilities

Many people in India cannot read, speak or write, and the country has over 60 million people with some form of hearing impairment. There is a desperate need for a high-quality text-to-speech and speech-to-text engines for people with physical disabilities. These products also be freely available so that those who cannot afford to buy expensive proprietary software like JAWS can contribute to Wikipedia in their languages. Many of the text-to-speech engines available today for Indian languages sound so mechanical that it is difficult for the average speaker to use them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-voices-april-27-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-eight-challenges-indian-language-wikipedias-need-to-overcome